International Law, and 2025 U.S. Strikes on Iran’s Nuclear Facilities

The 2025 US bombs on Iran’s nuclear sites did not come out of the blue. They were the aftermath of years of strain between the United States and Iran, triggered by the nuclear program of Iran. Iran allegedly has been producing nuclear weapons, though its government claims that the program is purely peaceful, to access energy and use in medical practices. The US and some of its allies exhibited suspicion that Iran would develop nuclear weapons through its nuclear work, which has been going on in recent years.

In 2015, Iran agreed to major world powers under the nuclear deal known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and established limits to its nuclear work as a way of lifting some economic sanctions. In 2018, though, the US backed out of this deal, and sanctions were imposed once again, leading to tension. In the years that followed, IAEA reports also indicated that Iran had increased the amount of uranium enrichment beyond the provisions of JCPOA.

Towards the end of 2024 and the beginning of 2025, the security issue became more severe with the US intelligence alleging that Iran was on the verge of achieving weapons-grade level uranium. According to the US, this caused an immediate threat that could not be overlooked. The scenario has occurred in the past in history, like when Israel attacked Iraq and damaged the Osirak reactor in 1981, known as Operation Opera, and recently in 2007, when it also slowed down a suspected nuclear facility in Syria. The discussions on whether the said putative preventive actions can be justified within the international legal regime frequently involve the use of these past events.

Perspective of International Law

International law establishes the boundaries regarding when nations may use military force against one another. Article 2 (4) of the UN states that no UN member state should use force, which can compromise the territorial integrity or the political independence of any other country. This implies that in most cases, it is prohibited to attack the facilities of another country.

Nevertheless, a country has the right to exercise force in self-defense in case it becomes a victim of an armed attack, or a threat of such an attack becomes imminent, according to Article 51 of the UN Charter. And here is where the controversy starts. Enthusiasts of the US stand in 2025 claim that the nuclear program of Iran established a real and imminent threat, which warranted action as a case of anticipatory self-defense. The Caroline case of 1837 is exemplified here, in which it was determined that self-defense is subject to the requirements of necessity (lack of other choice) and immediacy (the threat is under immediate occurrence).

You May Like To Read:

• Malaysia Condemns Israel’s Settlement Expansion, Reaffirms Support for Palestine
• Regional Backlash Grows Over Israel’s Settlement Expansion in Palestinian Territories

Self-defense can only be conducted once an actual armed attack has occurred, and not a perceived future attack. In this perspective, the 2025 strikes could be conceptualized as a preventive offensive, which is usually in violation of international law at the moment.

The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) also comes into operation when force is employed. According to this body of law, military actions have to respect the principles of proportionality (the harm caused should not be out of proportion to the military advantage) and distinction (military objects must be distinguishable from civilians and civilian objects). Because nuclear facilities may be dual-use in being used both for civilian and military purposes, the act of hitting such nuclear facilities results in tough legal questions.

Global and Institutional Reactions

Within no time after the US attacked the Iranian nuclear facilities, the world attracted attention and became divided. The Security Council had an emergency meeting within hours. Russia and China accused the US of involving the violation of the use of force as stipulated in the UN Charter.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released a statement expressing concern about the destruction of nuclear plants and the possible threat of radioactive contamination. The agency also pointed out that independent inspections were necessary to determine the real situation of the nuclear program of Iran before the strikes occurred. A number of the non-aligned states pressed on the principle that any nuclear conflict must be addressed in a non-forceful manner.

Ultimately, the 2025 US bombings of Iran’s nuclear plants only presented the world with more explanations that were unanswerable. They revealed the existing conflict between the principle of sovereignty of states and what is claimed to be a right of self-defense against new threats. Regardless of the interpretation of the strikes as either a legitimate action to secure international security or simply the illegal exercise of force, it has now become one of the most important episodes in the history of the evolving understanding of international law one that might have set the course of the future of the actions of countries towards the perceived nuclear threats.